Shine the light on me

Turn out the (incandescent) lights, the party’s over.

Or is it?

Four years ago, Congress passed an energy bill that essentially banned the light bulb as we have known it since the days of Thomas Edison. Under the guise of energy efficiency, our betters in Washington decided that the incandescent light bulb had to give way to compact fluorescent lights by 2012.

The new bulbs supposedly last longer and use less energy, leaving less of a carbon footprint.

But many people don’t like the quality of the light in the new bulbs. In addition, they are far more expensive than conventional lighting and contain hazardous mercury — break one and you have to follow a cleanup ritual more appropriate for a haz-mat team.

Now new tests have shown their longevity has been exaggerated by as much as 33 percent — especially in rooms where lights are turned on and off frequently.

Thankfully, the light bulb regulations caught the attention of a handful of conservative activists, who trumpeted the new rules as a prime example of a meddlesome government run amok, injecting itself into every nook and cranny of our private lives. Many members of Congress who previously supported the bulb move — including Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee — have reconsidered in the face of a vocal backlash.

All this will culminate Monday in a House vote on the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, which would repeal the incandescent bulb ban. Under House rules, the measure will require a two-thirds majority to pass. Members of the lower chamber should support the repeal of this colossal overreach — and the Senate should follow suit.

The new light bulbs may indeed be the wave of the future. But let that be determined in the marketplace, rather than in the cushy offices of some federal lawmaker or regulator.